1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the learned Munsif. West Allahabad, setting; aside an award made in a pending suit.
2. The a ward was impugned by one of the parties on the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct. The lower Court upheld the objection, set aside the award and superseded the arbitration. The only ground for revision is that the alleged misconduct attributed to the arbitrator is not a misconduct in law and that, therefore the lower Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the award.
3. The ground on which the award was impugned was that the arbitrator made notes of evidence given in arbitration-proceedings, but did not file such notes, with the award, as he should have, done under para. 10, Sch. 2 of the CPC. It cannot be denied that according to the provisions contained in that paragraph, it was the duty of the arbitrator to have filed the notes of evidence-made by him in course of the arbitration proceedings. The only question is whether the omission to do to amounts to such misconduct as vitiates an award. It is contended in revision that it was a mere oversight on the part of the arbitrator and that no misconduct is implied in his omission to file the notes of evidence. I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion as regards the merits of this contention, as in my opinion no question of jurisdiction arises and therefore the revision is incompetent. It cannot be disputed that the lower Court had jurisdiction to set aside the award on proof of misconduct. The question whether a certain act amounts to misconduct on the part of the arbitrator is one arising in the case which the Court has every jurisdiction to decide. If in deciding that question the Court took an erroneous view of law, or made an incorrect inference from the facts proved, all that can be attributed to the Court is an error of judgment. It cannot be said that there was any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Assuming therefore that the view taken by the lower Court on the question of law raised before it was incorrect, it is impossible to say that lie lower Court acted without jurisdiction, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In this view, no interference in revision is called for. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.
K.S
4. Application dismissed.